This book is very strange to me. I find it most frustrating because Gould and also the narrator at the beginning tell about the the impact of stories, but they also tend to discredit themselves because they write that stories are "unreliable fairy tales" or they relate stories to the stories told to Americans so that they would buy the narrator's fake furniture. Yet this doesn't exactly make me want to keep reading the book, because they don't seem to think that I have any reason to believe what is written.
However, the idea of humans being like fish is intriguing to me. It is personified as Gould resides in his own cell or "fish bowl" at first, and more so as we tried to compare different characters to the kelpy yesterday in class.
I agree with Ashley; this book is the farthest possible from relatable, and the narrators do discredit themselves (similar to when Clara that someone in her stressful situation cannot be trusted to relay the truth). It is frustrating as a reader to know that the author isn't relaying a narrative, so much as he/she is sending a collection of united ideas and perceptions that the reader can interpret in an infinite number of ways, (like how it was discussed that we could use almost anything as a theme or symbol of the book).
ReplyDeleteA difference between Ashley and I, however is the fact that I actually enjoy trudging my way through this convoluted, potentially meaningless novel for some incomprehensible reason.
I agree as well. None of us are crazy convicts who lie to people for a living so the book doesn't seem that relatable. The anthropomorphizing fish or animals is a little relatable but not really in a deep or connectable way. And so because this book isn't that relatable some people may not like it. Personally I tend to enjoy books or movies a lot more when I can relate. But for some strange reason I'm actually enjoying this book. As far as reliability goes, there isn't any. But we have to realize that when it comes to any piece of literature, especially fiction, there is never any reliability. When reading any work you have to interpret it in layers. There's the literal, the metaphorical, the idea behind the metaphorical, etc. and it goes deeper and deeper until you have nothing left. When it comes to the literal in this book we have nothing because the literal is so condoluded and untrustworthy that we can't take anything at face value. On the first day of discussion I was shocked that some people actually thought that Sid Hammet had literally switched places, or that Sid thought that he he literally switched places, with a fish. That seems like something very metaphorical or spiritual to me not something to be taken literally and a lot of the book is like that. While reading this book we can't take anything literally or else we'll all just end up lost and confused but I enjoy listening to whoever the narrator is talk in riddles about this wacky story and try and find the meaning behind words that at face value have no meaning at all
ReplyDeleteDespite all the confusion and "contradictions," I would like to point out that is all there for a specific reason-to accurately portray the confusion and struggle for identity that Gould/Sid had to face. As both Sid's narrative and Gould's narrative seem to intertwine and get "muddled" up, it really is trying to show that since boh Sid and Gould are struggling with their sense of identity, the author purposefully mixes their narratives to make us confused about the identity of the narrator-the same confusion both chaacters are facing. In addition, the "contradictions" show the confusion present in Gould's mind, making him contradict himself. Once we understand the function of all those confusion, we can really appreciate the ingeniousness of the augor as he makes use have the same state of mind as Gould
ReplyDelete